Baltimore Police, Don't take pictures

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by T. Adam Martin

Now what would that accomplish? You come up with your evidence about why officers are so heroic and we come up with a list of times when they are sinister. Again, you're trying to paint into extremes when the truth of the matter is that it resides in the middle. You want to paint all officers with the same brush because of the service they provide. That brush doesn't exist.

This is why I came into this discussion in the first place. It seems that more times than not, the Police are thrown under the bus quicker than photographers. If a photographer is questioned by police then the police are automatically the bad guy and we must then prove or disprove the accusations made. If it was a guy without a camera, I still maintain that there would not be the same outrage. In fact, I bet people would be more likely to say "He brought it on himself" even though you say it wouldn't change your opinion.

Cops are fighting an uphill battle and every thread like this makes their job more difficult as there are more and more people willing to confront the cops and videotape their confrontation... hoping to get some "good stuff". Don't believe me? You apparently just fell off the turnip truck.

[wclavey]

Just as a point of reference, the same video was shared over on the Large Format Photo Forum and the result is a request to arrange a meet-up for a group shoot at a Maryland light rail station...

I think that "more times than not, the police are thrown under the bus quicker than the photographers" because it is not against the law to be a photographer... and more times than not, the police have overstepped their authority...

Just ask someone who has been detained for hours, physically held and questioned, although not actually arrested, for taking pictures...

[daveb]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

"May I see your ID?" Police
"No, I have done nothing wrong, so I don't have to." You
"There were reports that someone was taking pictures in a suspicious way" Police
"I'm not sure what that means, but photography is a hobby and I just love trains. I do understand the concern, especially since 9-11 and know you are just doing your job. Here is my Identification" You
"Thanks for your cooperation- everything looks clean" Police

Jeff... you make a grand assumption here which has been proven over and over again. There are some members of the law enforcement community that are in no way reasonable

Many even with ID handed to them would have pursued their disruption of this guys rights because they believe that they are the law givers and as such infallible in their reasoning. Note well that these two cops were not moving from their position that the photog was in violation of policy until they had a superior on the scene or a phone call that seemed to show the officers the error of their ways. With some of the more authoritarian cops out there this guy could have punishment exacted on him right there for contempt of cop. Not for not handing over the ID but for "disobeying a lawful order" (stop videotaping).

There is a saying in some communities " If you are going to come at me ... come at me proper" These officers did not "come proper" because of their misunderstanding of the law. The photographer knew that he was standing on righteous ground.

I applaud the photographer ... his handling of this encounter was spot on.

[BenE]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

This is why I came into this discussion in the first place. It seems that more times than not, the Police are thrown under the bus quicker than photographers. If a photographer is questioned by police then the police are automatically the bad guy and we must then prove or disprove the accusations made. If it was a guy without a camera, I still maintain that there would not be the same outrage. In fact, I bet people would be more likely to say "He brought it on himself" even though you say it wouldn't change your opinion.

Cops are fighting an uphill battle and every thread like this makes their job more difficult as there are more and more people willing to confront the cops and videotape their confrontation... hoping to get some "good stuff". Don't believe me? You apparently just fell off the turnip truck.

Well said.

The irony of all this is that every time a photographer pulls these stunts; and yes, most are stunts to prove a point; they make it difficult for all photographers.

It reminds me of teenagers who like to "show parents or school officials who is boss".

The fact is that when this happens, more rules and laws will be made and more of the confrontational situations will happen. If laws are passed that are strict, it will not be the police that make the laws, butr they will have to enforce them.

They will continue to be blamed and ridiculed for doing their job, and of course they will be ridiculed for not knowing every law that covers every situation.

It would not surprise me that is sometime down the road that everyone with a camera will be required to have some sort of ID. Then, we will be back to the whining about our rights being violated, and nothing will really get done.

The credo of, "it is better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission" is one that some think is proper.

My humble suggestion and something I have done for 40 years is this:

If I am in an area that might be one where photographers might be suspect or where photography might raise a red flag with anyone, private citizen or officials, I simply find out who is the person to talk to about taking photographs. I have never had a problem.

My other suggestion is this:

Barge in and strut around being un-cooperative. Question all police authority. Show them how dumb they are.

It is up to each person to do what works best for them.

[T. Adam Martin]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

Don't believe me? You apparently just fell off the turnip truck.

Originally Posted by GW2

Being right doesn't always mean winning the argument. If you are married, you may understand that better than if you aren't. :-)

Both of your hyperbole continues to amaze. What it adds to your argument continues to evade me.

Jeff, you have an axe to grind: "It seems that more times than not, the Police are thrown under the bus quicker than photographers." You have a difficult time appraising the situation and keeping the discussion on target because you are more concerned with proving that officers don't get a fair shake rather than address the individual incident.

You believe that officer's are having a more difficult time conducting themselves as they normally would when the cameras are turned off and these types of things "makes their job more difficult as there are more and more people willing to confront the cops and videotape their confrontation... hoping to get some 'good stuff.'" So you attack those who record. You believe that officers should be free to conduct their business, as they see fit, without camera intrusion. If I'm wrong, you'll have to correct me because this is how I've read your responses.

Originally Posted by GW2

Your use of the revolution is similarly over the top. They argued that taxation with representation was a show stopper. But, showing ID when asked?

I urge you to go back and read my post. The revolution wasn't the analogue. I stated the nation "went through similar throes when colonials argued whether the correct way to address the mother nations wrongs were through diplomacy or revolution." This is a metaphor for how things are discussed and course of action decided, not putting the photographer's actions on par with the revolution.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

"May I see your ID?" Police
"No, I have done nothing wrong, so I don't have to." You
"There were reports that someone was taking pictures in a suspicious way" Police
"I'm not sure what that means, but photography is a hobby and I just love trains. I do understand the concern, especially since 9-11 and know you are just doing your job. Here is my Identification" You
"Thanks for your cooperation- everything looks clean" Police

Now, that won't be the way that every police officer would handle it, but more times than not, it won't be much more than that.

Next step, contact his superiors and explain your concerns over the situation and what possible implications it could have.

That is certainly a solid recommendation on how to approach the situation. And one you've tried and it accomplished what you wanted. Nobody is arguing that your approach is invalid. You are arguing that it is the best way to approach the situation, and the only way a reasonable, level-headed photographer OUGHT to approach the situation.

At this point, you probably already know that I think your approach isn't the only way, and does not give credence or allowance to someone that answers "Since I'm not violating any laws, and you're not detaining me, I'd prefer to not identify myself." You can speculate on why a person would respond this way, calling them names and attacking their character, but it doesn't address the argument whether this person should or should not provide ID, in light of THEIR agenda and goals, not yours.

[Some Idiot]

Originally Posted by wclavey

Just as a point of reference, the same video was shared over on the Large Format Photo Forum and the result is a request to arrange a meet-up for a group shoot at a Maryland light rail station...

I think that "more times than not, the police are thrown under the bus quicker than the photographers" because it is not against the law to be a photographer... and more times than not, the police have overstepped their authority...

Just ask someone who has been detained for hours, physically held and questioned, although not actually arrested, for taking pictures...

Along the same lines as wclaveys post


Another point of reference, notice the replies??.................. "Good job photographer for standing up for OUR rights as photographers"

You would think more "photographers" on this board would see it the same way, The replies here seem like they belong on a police forum? I don't get it....at all

[T. Adam Martin]

Originally Posted by BenE

It reminds me of teenagers who like to "show parents or school officials who is boss".

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

The only reason you don't is to be a prick... and get the treatment that this dude got.

Originally Posted by donlfaulkner

Where do these yoyo's come from. It seems to me he had nothing constructive to do and was just looking for a confrontation.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

We have so much conceit in our society about "you have no business stopping me! Who do you think you are?!" that we make a police officers job that much more difficult.

I'll wait for y'all to post your "don't taze me, bro" videos when it happens to ya.

Originally Posted by Huck

This is why police treat photographers the way they do because of one bad apple who has to prove a point on you tube.

Originally Posted by BenE

It seems to be very complicated, at least with three types of people

1) Those who might be hiding something.
2) Those who like to taunt law enforcement
3) Those with a camera, which many times is the same as #2.

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

The intent of the photographer was to shove his point down the MTA's throat... He accomplished his goal. He was NOT seeking a positive outcome of the situation. You do not change laws or minds by acting this way. You do it through going through proper channels.

Originally Posted by BenE

What irks me more is that on the 2nd video, he sat there about 10 minutes videoing the empty track, the sidewalk, and a lot of other silly things, just to prove his point.

What irks me is that people like this, who might have avoided all the brouhaha are making it worse for photographers who are polite and non-confrontational.

[...]

Now some of you can whine about your rights, so be it. The next time you need someone to protect you , don't call a cop.

Your descriptors:

Whiners. Inconsiderate. Immature. Prick. Yo-yos. Conceited. Bad apple. Taunting. Hiding something. Silly. Improper.

Now that we know how you've profiled this photographer, and others who choose his tact, we know where you're coming from.

[lfmerrell]

Chicks-bikinis-zombies-cameras-police
This. Article has everything except Baltimore, MD

ENFIELD ——
Police responded to a complaint about a group of women in bikinis Sunday evening.

Police said that a resident on Mathewson Street called police at 5:15 p.m. and said he was "alarmed" by a group of about 15 young woman in bikinis with zombie make-up taking photographs on the street.

Police said that the women, when made aware of the complaint, voluntarily moved to another street. They told police that they were make-up artists from Six Flags and were doing a calendar shoot.

Topics
Six Flags Inc.

[Sample Our Free Breaking News Alert And 3 P.M. News Newsletters]


We tell you what's happening, when it happens, for FREE:
Sign-up for Breaking News Mobile Text Alerts: Text NEWS, WEATHER or TRAFFIC to 37798
Subscribe to our Breaking News E-mails
Try the News@3 Newsletter

[Jeff_Green]

Both of your hyperbole continues to amaze. What it adds to your argument continues to evade me.

It's not hyperbole if it is fact, no matter how much you say it. There are more and more people looking to make examples of police by taping encounters. That can not be denied (to the level headed). All you have to do is watch the news or YouTube.

There is no "axe to grind". I am a photographer who would prefer to not be stopped when no laws have been broken. The issue I have is when photographers believe they are Rosa Parks and are solving a civil rights issue by telling a police officer "you can't see my ID because I know the law better than you".

You say that there are other ways to handle the situation that are just as right. There are! My contention is that you are NOT solving the situation by handling it as he did, just creating more ancillary issues that will need to be dealt with. Will they? Maybe eventually, but in the meantime, it creates more hassle for us as photographers.

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by T. Adam Martin

Your descriptors:

Whiners. Inconsiderate. Immature. Prick. Yo-yos. Conceited. Bad apple. Taunting. Hiding something. Silly. Improper.

Now that we know how you've profiled this photographer, and others who choose his tact, we know where you're coming from.

So are you denying that many in our society are conceited and prefer confrontation?

[Some Idiot]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

The issue I have is when photographers believe they are Rosa Parks and are solving a civil rights issue by telling a police officer "you can't see my ID because I know the law better than you".

and you know what, HE DID KNOW THE LAW BETTER.

IMO....When a photographer is "in the right" and stands up for himself/herself, as a community of like minded individuals, we should stand with him/her, not against? That's what confuses me about responses like yours.

Have you not been harassed by the cops while taking pictures?

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by Some Idiot

and you know what, HE DID KNOW THE LAW BETTER.

IMO....When a photographer is "in the right" and stands up for himself/herself, as a community of like minded individuals, we should stand with him/her, not against? That's what confuses me about responses like yours.

Have you not been harassed by the cops while taking pictures?

I have been. 99% of the problems that arise are in how you conduct yourself. It really is as simple as that. There are occasional circumstances in which a police officer will go over the top, but those are few and far between.

I applaud those who stand up for photographers! I applaud those who do so in a professional manner.

I will again repeat what I said at the beginning though. I think the police handled certain parts of this poorly and I think the same for the photographer.

[Some Idiot]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

I have been. 99% of the problems that arise are in how you conduct yourself. It really is as simple as that. There are occasional circumstances in which a police officer will go over the top, but those are few and far between.

I applaud those who stand up for photographers! I applaud those who do so in a professional manner.

I will again repeat what I said at the beginning though. I think the police handled certain parts of this poorly and I think the same for the photographer.

I guess my view on it is a step backwards from you, It's not how the photographer deal with the harassment. It's that as photographers, we shouldn't be in the situation in the first place. There is zero justification for the police to mess with us. We are breaking no laws.

What if they knocked on your front door and wanted to ID you and come in and look around, just because? Would you let them so they can "feel better" about who you are and what you are doing? Or would that cross your line?

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by Some Idiot

I guess my view on it is a step backwards from you, It's not how the photographer deal with the harassment. It's that as photographers, we shouldn't be in the situation in the first place. There is zero justification for the police to mess with us. We are breaking no laws.

What if they knocked on your front door and wanted to ID you and come in and look around, just because? Would you let them so they can "feel better" about who you are and what you are doing? Or would that cross your line?

So now you are okay with making silly comparisons? Taking pictures of mass transit is a far cry from sitting in my house. lol

As for there being zero justification, I don't thing that broad brush can be used just as your side has said to "our side".

[Abel]

I feel this thread has gone on long enough...

This topic is much like religion/politics.. no matter how much debate occurs one side will never convince the other to change their mind. thats just how it is..

we'll just call it a draw...

thread closed.